Since some of us have parents who have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that they are getting taxed on 85% of the money paid to the federal government to "put away," you may be interested in the following: Q: Which party took Social Security from an independent fund and put it in the general fund so that Congress could spend it? A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic-controlled House and Senate. Q: Which party put a tax on Social Security? A: The Democratic Party. Q: Which party increased the tax on Social Security? A: The Democratic Party with Al Gore casting the deciding vote. Q: Which party decided to give money to immigrants? A: That's right, immigrants moved into this country and at 65 got SSI Social Security. The Democratic Party gave that to them although they never paid a dime into it. Then, after doing all this, the Democrats turn around and tell you the Republicans want to take your Social Security. And the worst part about it is, people believe it! Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years. Our Senators and Representatives -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it. You see, Social Security benefits are not suitable for persons of their rare elevation in society. They feel they should have a special plan for themselves. So, many years ago. they voted in their own benefit plan. In more recent years, no member of Congress has felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan. For all practical purposes their plan works like this: When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die, except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments. For example, Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7,800,000.00 (that's Seven Million, Eight-Hundred Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275,000.00 during the last years of their lives. This is calculated on an average life span for each. Their cost for this excellent plan is $00.00. Nada. Zilch. Zip. This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Funds - our tax dollars at work! From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid) into every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our employer) -- we can expect to get an average $1,000 per month after retirement. Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000 monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal Senator Bill Bradley's benefits for one year! Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made. That change would be to jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us ... then sit back and watch how fast they would fix it.
Excellent analysis. Great post. Once again, the liberals' hypocrisy is EXPOSED. Sorry Granny Smith, but you just hand that little check over to us. We liberals first need to seize part of it to fund our caribou-saving projects in Alaska and pay part of it to immigrants who have contributed nothing. What's that? You need the money to pay your rent? NO. You can't have it -- you must go live in a cardboard shanty so that our precious caribou can be saved. What's that? You say it's your money that you yourself put into the program? Well, we don't care about that little tidbit. Besides, after achieving such dismal returns on investment while parked in our Social Security Fund, it's not like it's a lot of money anyhow. It is ridiculous that the government thinks they can take *my* money and provide for my retirement any better than I could myself.
I don't dispute any of the factual info as I don't know that much about the legislation, (though the implications and the lack of context are another matter), or the fact that the house and senate members plan is bullsh't considering that most of them are millionaires anyway. But, tell me, did you compose this post on your own, or was it lifted from GOP/right wing propaganda that is floating around hundreds of internet sites? EDIT I DO dispute this now, your original post was a lie and complete crap, good job. Q: Which party took Social Security from an independent fund... ... Q: Which party took Social Security from an independent fund and put it in the general fund so that Congress could spend it? A: It ... www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/965637/posts - 15k - Cached - Similar pages BuzzFlash Reader Commentary -- A Cure For GOP Email Lies About ... ... Q.* Which party took Social Security from an independent fund and put it in the general fund so that Congress could spend it? A ... www.buzzflash.com/contributors/2002/10/09_GOPLies.html - 27k - Cached - Similar pages Social Security ... put away," you may be interested in the following: Q: Which party took Social Security from an independent fund and put it in the general fund so that Congress ... www.mail-archive.com/airheads-chat@micapeak.com/ msg01970.html - 7k - Cached - Similar pages Christian Activities - Managing Your Finances ... following: Q: Which party took Social Security from an independent fund and put it in the general fund so that Congress could spend it? A ... www.christianactivities.com/ financial/story.asp?ID=2805 - 63k - Cached - Similar pages TFGCEdit ... be interested in the following: Q: Which party took Social Security from an independent fund and put it in the general fund so that Congress could spend it? ... hometown.aol.com/al1556/editorial.html - 16k - Cached - Similar pages Sioux City Journal: Which party has worst Social Security record ... ... may be interested in the following: Which party took Social Security from an independent fund and put it in the general fund so that Congress could spend it? ... www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2003/08/31/news_opinion/ local/b3cdd053c2c042af86256d930010d881.txt - 20k - Sep 9, 2003 - Cached - Similar pages Social Insecurity - BreakTheChain.org ... Which party took Social Security from an independent fund and put it in the general fund so that Congress could spend it? - It was ... www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/ssdems.html - 10k - Cached - Similar pages Deb's Excellent Conservative Political Pages featuring Rush ... Q: Which party took Social Security from an independent fund and put it in the general fund so that Congress could spend it? A: It ... www.dittohead.org/need_to_know.html - 3k - Cached - Similar pages the difference between the Republicans and the rest of the world ... Subject: Social Security. Q: Which party took Social Security from an independent fund and put it in the general fund so that Congress could spend it? ... www.tribalmessenger.org/daily_buzz/ 10-28-02-taxes-and-the-common-good.htm - 4k - Cached - Similar pages The Montana Republican Party ... Goofy Democrats Q: Which party took Social Security from an independent fund and put it in the general fund so that Congress could spend it? ... www.gop.mcdd.net/ modules.php?name=News&new_topic=48 - 27k - Sep 9, 2003 - Cached - Similar pages
Ahh, the mystery is solved....CASE CLOSED... TJ, as your new owner, you shall report to my estate immediately. Please use the service entrance.
What a sad commentary this is on the disinformation floating around conservative media circles. Next thing you know is that they'll be talking about the Kentucky Fried Rat. Oh, and the pension thing is bullsh't too: Summary of eRumor The email says members of congress, both Senators and the House of Representatives, don't pay into Social Security but do have a special retirement plan that continues their active salary until death. The email encourages jerking "...the Golden Fleece retirement out from under the Senators and Congressmen, and put them in Social Security with the rest of us." The Truth Congressional pensions are controversial and many believe they should be reformed, but this email has several inaccuracies. First, it is not true that members of congress don't pay into Social Security. It's been required of them since 1983, according to Andrew G. Biggs, Social Security Analyst for the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C.. Additionally, Biggs says Congress does have its own retirement plan which does pay a generous pension to retired members of congress plus they are eligible for the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), a 401k-type investment program available to all federal employees. Depending on a person's length of service, it is possible to retire with annual income that is equivalent to a Congressional salary, but no member of Congress automatically retires with his or her salary being paid as pension. TruthOrFiction.com was unable to find the source for the alleged Bill Bradley retirement calculations.
Samuel, I would love to see how this liberal spin-machine that created that left-wing propaganda that you posted backs up their logic of the following: "The Republican’s privatization plan cost us huge tax increases and cuts in services". So if we cut government services, then it costs tax payers more? This is news to me. Sigh. More false information being put forth by the lunatic fringe of the Democratic party. It's a good thing voters don't believe their lies, otherwise there could actually be Democrats in positions of power in this country.
TJ, the core of this stuff came from theSnopes.com and truthorfiction.com, those aren't lefty sites, but regular old websites that debunk silly urban legends like the kentucky fried rat, the killer with a hook on the hand, the lady with a beehive hairdo that had a rat living in it, getting cockroach eggs from envelopes, and other silly urban legends. I feel stupid for not questioning it initially. You should feel double stupid for gleefully endorsing it. Admit it, this is the ultimate in being EXPOSED. Hang your head in shame.
DEAD WRONG. The quote which I questioned, and which you have failed in your efforts at responding, was cited by Robert Kuttner, a liberal spinmeister who wrote an article entitled, "Running Scared How the GOP abandoned Social Security privatization". These lies were published on a website called The American Prospect, which is a hate-filled liberal lie propagating machine. In other words, your source was just as flawed and biased as that cited by the thread's starter. EXPOSED
It is truly the most pathetic thing one can ever see on this BBS: "refuting" (sic) a long, detailed, referenced argument with a minute focus on one loose strand. It happens all the time. If anyone would really like to argue with Sam here and attempt to restore any credibility to the chain e-mail garbage that appeared atop this thread, please address the salient major points categorically. And, for the T_J's in the audience: victory is not proving that only 75% of enbehay's assertions are lies. It looks as if three of the original four statements are completely incorrect.
Blah, so the quote in the counter e-mail (which i was NOT talking about) is questionable. I don't know or care about the counter e-mail says or what its based on. I think the counter e-mail is a stupid idea and not worth doing. If you like, I'll edit the top post to delete the counter e-mail, as it really is extraneous to the disinformation being perpetrated by the thread starter, complete lies passed off as truth the fact remains that the original e-mail, which you gleefully seconded as absolute truth, has been EXPOSED as nothing worse than a complete, utter, falsehood, in the manner of crop circles and other dime store hoaxes You shouldn't respond to such disinformation by clapping your hands like a trained seal. Shame on you for not thinking independently. This is just sad. See why I always harp on you guys for not sourcing your articles? Sometimes sh-t like this gets in.
great research job SamFisher I commend you! Lunatic fringe radical uber-religious neoconservative nazi lies EXPOSED once again
Good, I'm glad that you can at least admit that you tried to pass biased lies off as the truth. I accept your COMPLETE AND UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER.
You know, the world won't end if you admit you're wrong every once in a while. It happens to the best of us.
Under the terms of your COMPLETE AND UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER, I order you to recuse yourself from this thread.
As your new owner, I would have to take you with me. Which might not be so bad, as this thing should probably be locked. While I enjoy showing off my shiny new trophy, the disinformation being perpetrated at the top should probably be removed for the good of all mankind.
Dude, do you ever present *facts* to back up your EXPOSED claims? Instead of debunking the information with facts and evidence, you attack the source. (must...resist...urge) EX- (getting...weak...can't...hold...on) EXPOSED
